Minister of ecology stands firm before 250 glyphosate-supporting farmers

1. France to ban glyphosate weedkiller by 2022: government
2. “Justice and History will catch up with us": Hulot wants to end glyphosate
—

1. France to ban glyphosate weedkiller by 2022: government

Phys.org, September 25, 2017
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-09-france-glyphosate-weedkiller.html
[links to sources at URL above]

France has decided to set 2022 as a deadline to phase out the use of glyphosate, the controversial active ingredient in one of the world's most widely used weedkillers, the government said on Monday.

Glyphosate is the main component in the best-selling herbicide Roundup produced by the US agro-chemicals giant Monsanto, but there have been concerns it may cause cancer.

The European Commission has proposed extending the license for the use of the chemical for 10 years, which France has said it will vote against and try to block.

"The prime minister... has decided that this product will be banned in France by the end of the government's term, as well as others that are similar and which are a public health threat," government spokesman Christophe Castaner told RMC radio.

Castaner said the government would set aside 5.0 billion euros ($6.0 billion) over President Emmanuel Macron's five-year term to support the development of an alternative to glyphosate.
—

2. “Justice and History will catch up with us": Hulot wants to end glyphosate

Ouest-France, 23 Sept 2017
https://www.ouest-france.fr/politique/nicolas-hulot/nicolas-hulot-veut-en-finir-avec-le-glyphosate-entretien-exclusif-5266387
[English translation by GMWatch]

The minister of ecology stood firm in front of the 250 farmers who came to defend glyphosate on Friday in the Champs-Élysées. He thinks this herbicide is dangerous. In an interview he gave to Ouest-France, Nicolas Hulot argued for the precautionary principle.

Proponents of glyphosate defend its ecological benefits. Do you agree?

Farmers, like ministers, are under fire from contradictory elements. Glyphosate, like everything related to health and the environment, affects human life, that of consumers and that of farmers. Faced with these serious issues, we must get out of the trap of dogmatic confrontation - hence my meeting with farmers on the Champs-Élysées - and move from emotion to reason. In other times, I have heard the same controversies, for example on asbestos. And we have seen tragedies, as spectators. Depending on our decisions, justice and history will catch up with us.

You are confident that this herbicide is dangerous?

Every day, science discovers bioaccumulation phenomena and cocktail effects. Against glyphosate and its role as an endocrine disruptor, and possibly a powerful antibiotic, there is a bundle of presumptions that justify applying the precautionary principle.

But a brutal ban would pose an unsolvable problem for many farmers...

I understand that perfectly. And I am on their side, including regarding their health. But on the pretext that it is complicated, should we continue to push the topic under the table?

Will France therefore oppose renewal at European level?

The answer is yes, because we have to make the fastest possible exit out of the most dangerous products. Without constraint, there will be no creativity to find alternatives.

If a [glyphosate] renewal is adopted in Brussels, will the government impose a ban on French soil?

On glyphosate and on all endocrine disruptors. I have learned from the government that France is expanding its research capacity. This seems necessary when you see that a document produced by a European agency was copy-pasted from a manufacturer of glyphosate! France will be able to shoulder its responsibilities unilaterally. But we will not take any brutal action against farmers.

It seems that there is no alternative to glyphosate, if not a new herbicide developed by Monsanto ...

On the molecular level, there is nothing to guarantee that [any new herbicide] will be less dangerous than glyphosate. On the other hand, in terms of cultivation practices, many farmers are weeding without glyphosate while also refraining from ploughing – a practice that is beneficial for soils. These practices are already used in France, even if they require more work. In the field of insect control, there are very good solutions without insecticides, thanks to biocontrol (use of natural mechanisms – Ed.). It is therefore necessary to discuss the objectives and means, particularly within the General Conference on Food [les États généraux de l’alimentation], which is taking place at the moment.

At the conclusion of the Conference, will the government finance an agriculture that no longer uses controversial products?

The Conference must be a moment of collective intelligence, where nobody stigmatizes anyone. I am not the enemy of conventional farmers. But everyone has to step into a process of progress. Value-sharing - where the big winners of the agricultural sector are still the manufacturers of plant protection products - must be re-examined and trust between consumers and farmers must be restored. We must create an agriculture that is intensive in employment rather than in fertilizers and plant protection products. Yes, this means paying farmers for their work in favour of biodiversity and of the climate and energy transition.

But funds are lacking. The Minister of Agriculture has just announced the cessation of some aid to organic agriculture ...

It was necessary to arbitrate, in particular in favour of medium-altitude agriculture. In fact, what is important is the next move, that is to say the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). If the Conference allows for a shared French vision, it will contribute to the construction of a new CAP, the first European expenditure item.